aybe Razib and his pals at GNXP want to take a shot at swatting down a few more (although I fear I’d be insulting their intelligence with such an easy task).

i don't want to give ammunition to those who think browns are idiots :) people might be interested in pz meyers response. the problem with people like chopra though is that he reflects the mainstream view of things like evolution in many ways.

how many people knew that 'survival of the fittest' predated origin of species (popularized by herbert spencer, who preferred lamarckism over more orthodox darwinism).

Deepak Chopra should not have not done it. I guess he is an idiot.

I am spiritual but not religuous. However, I respect religuous people and appreciate their faith.

One should never mix science and religion. Age of earth is my backyard (I know some of the other SM readers too). I'll let you guys know when I write something and link to one of the latest Science issue on "intelligent design".

Kush

PS: I am glad for your public-service. Thanks

Razib......if you need help with geochronology, tectonics, paleontology, uniformatinism, rock record, stratigraphy, please let me know.

I do this for living. My knowledge of biology is rudimentary but not age of the earth.

btw, didn't chopra say some nutty things about quantum mechanics awhile back? i think this is par for the course for him.

Kush:

I'm sure that Razib would put up a good guest post on the geological angle on evolution.

Abhi:

Good post, btw. W.r.t. this:

Maybe Razib and his pals at GNXP want to take a shot at swatting down a few more

The whole thing is shot through with the self-righteous retardation of the invincibly ignorant, but this one jumped out at me:

The most glaring is the leap by which inorganic molecules turned into DNA. For billions of years after the Big Bang, no other molecule replicated itself. No other molecule was remotely as complicated. No other molecule has the capacity to string billions of pieces of information that remain self-sustaining despite countless transformations into all the life forms that DNA has produced.

AAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH. One would think a Nobel Prize would be enough to bring recognition to this field:

http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1989/press.html

Cech was studying the splicing of RNA in a unicellular organism called Tetrahymena thermophila. He discovered, much to his surprise, that when he put an unprocessed RNA molecule into a test tube in the absence of protein, it started to splice itself. In other words, the RNA molecule could cut itself into pieces and Join the genetically important RNA fragments together again. Through the discovery of this chemically very complicated self-splicing reaction, Cech in 1982 became the first to show that RNA molecules can have a catalytic function. Subsequent development has been rapid and today close to a hundred RNA enzymes (also called ribozymes) are known.

As already mentioned, the discovery of catalytic RNA has altered the central dogma of the biosciences. Moreover, it has already had a profound influence on our understanding of how life on earth began and developed. We know that the flow of genetic information from DNA to protein requires enzymes and other proteins. So which was the first biomolecule - DNA or protein? The discovery of catalytic RNA may solve this "chicken and egg" problem. It is very likely that the RNA molecules were the first biomolecules to contain both the genetic information and play a role as biocatalysts.

That's introductory bio stuff, RNA world stuff, that I learned back in high school. If the Chopras of the world have their way, though, a future high school student *won't*.

I'm sure that Razib would put up a good guest post on the geological angle on evolution.

email me if you want to guest post. i don't know jack about rocks-i'd be interested :)

Razib,

I'll email you tomorrow. I was thinking on incorporating latest Science and Nature articles and build a short synthesis on "what does the rock record really tell us". They are other SM readers who very knowledgeable about earth too but I cannot speak for them for such an effort.

He is doing big disservice to South Asia,India and Hinduism by opening his mouth on things he doesn't know.

"I am going to stop here. Rest assured that I could systematically de-bunk every pseudoscientific point Chopra makes and I don’t even have my Ph.D. yet."

I don't have any expertise in this controversy, but I do know a little bit about both the history of, and the philosophy of science. It seems to me that sectarian battles and contention among competing truth claims are the norm in science.

In my view, to stigmatize an opponents proposition/s with the prefix "pseudo" adds nothing to your position. For a reader/listener keen to the tactics of argument, it probably earns a negative point. Better to let the merits of the record and your neutral (as much as possible) presentation alone - without stooping to sloganizing or (worse)peroration.

In reference to the Ph.D.: do you need a
fancy-pants degree to expose error? Or is this more about claiming authority or earning approval from the current circles of power?

I like to give SM writers hard time as anyone else.

Please be assured Chris, whatever little Abhi has said is grounded in robust observations. He knows the current ideas based on observations and hypothesis testing. He made some excellent points.

I'm obviously no scientist, but I am a fundamentalist Christian. There is a difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Creationism sincerely believes in the Biblical record of how the world came into being while Intelligent design simply states that there are reasons that this world is so dang complex and that chance isn't one of them..

I now open myself up to cross-examination and points of clarification may GOD have mercy on us all..

Fellow LD'ers WOOOT!

Because organisms with negative mutations die out sooner making their preservation potential less. Only a tiny fraction of dead life survives the fossilization process without being destroyed. That’s why you don’t find dinosaur bones in your backyard.

What?? Death creates fossils rather than the time/reason for death. And of the tiny that survived fossilization, what is the percentage that have undergone negative mutation? If that percentage is significantly negligible/low, your argument falls apart.

And dont you think "random mutation" is more voodoo than deriving (or at least attempting to) a pattern/model to that randomness?

Great post Abhi, another reason why I'm addicted to Sepia Mutiny.

Chopra's popularity is unfortunate, and is probably an outgrowth of the 1970's western Hippy romaticization of the "wise and mystical guru of the East," conveniently packaged for mainstream America.

Chopra's popularity is unfortunate, and is probably an outgrowth of the 1970's western Hippy romaticization of the "wise and mystical guru of the East," conveniently packaged for mainstream America.

Can I just say that your Sitayana is great for puncturing that kind of thing? I think that a certain degree of ribbing of religious tradition is useful...

Oh, and, if you're feeling *really* brave, I'd suggest project #2: The Quran from Aisha's standpoint. Though you might need to hire bodyguards. I'm serious.

I feel like everyone's declaring their allegiances before saying their piece, so I'll do the same. I'm an atheist. (Thank God for atheists!) I'm also a scientist and science journalist. Anyway, I have a few mildly related things to say.

I have no problem with Deepak being popular, he was one of the first brown faces to be widely recognised stateside. I've realised there are a lot of differences between the UK and America since I've frequented SM, and here's one - thinking Chopra is setting back the 'cause' of Desis, or giving us a bad name. Would Americans assume that all brown people think the same way simply because one high profile one says so? An honest question, I'm not poking fun.

Secondly:

One should never mix science and religion

I disagree. I think it's fun. Having just said I'm an atheist, I'm also fascinated by religion. I regard it as history - a reflection of what people thought at the time. On a similar theme to this post, the creation of the universe, it's very interesting to read Hinduism's beliefs as to how it all began and compare to the Big Bong. I mean Big Bang.

On a more serious note, I despise the attempts to undermine bona fide science and I am truly sad that some kids in America are being schooled in dogma as opposed to Darwinian science. I will continue to prefix it with pseudo-.

You know, I don't think I've ever met anyone who believes in ID. I'm surprised Tony Blair hasn't embraced it more wholeheartedly.

We had some discussion between scientist parents on this. We concluded that a national debate on this was pointless. I don't know if anyone remembers, but early 90's Eric Lerner and others were going around talking about how Big Bang never happened and the opposite point of view was being suppressed. Thankfully the overwhelming burder of evidence has finally killed that sort of nonsense. But when it was rife, astronomers would organize debates, write letters, speak to schools, etc. I was present when my thesis advisor (David Spergel) had a public debate with Eric Lerner. We thought he floored him. Various students raised many excellent points. I mean it was easy, the guy didn't know about error bars. When we walked out, the humanities students said, "you guys were so mean to that poor fellow". They totally bought the notion that we were deliberately suppressing someone just by being more articulate and louder.

This is a losing battle. As long as scientific research stays rigorous, sooner or later the weight of evidence will overwhelm any such nonsense. Its best to just wait it out.

BB -- who is to blame for the sad state of science in American public schools? You could say the kids are innocent victims of an evangelical political agenda, but then again, I read this great quote in a Barbara Kingsolver short story once, told from the point of view of a high school biology teacher, where she says something like "Some students were OK, but most were just waiting for me to start talking about apes so they could stop listening." I'd say the parents are definitely part of the problem, feeding kids similar crap at home. If the adults were better-educated, they'd be up in arms fighting the school districts and textbook companies peddling this rubbish.

Would Americans assume that all brown people think the same way simply because one high profile one says so? An honest question, I'm not poking fun.

Frakly, it's not just Americans. I'm embarrassed to say one of my uncles is a huge fan. He's a effn nuclear engineer and he was completely into Chopra for a while. ugh.

abhi, the problem with science is that it doesn't provide society or humans with a methodology or structure that shows them a path of life, purpose, or simply, what to do.

and i think that's really behind the success or appeal of Chopra, he provides a concrete, practical way of living that, obviously, people have found to be working. so the dude does have something to him, as opposed to his attempts at higher science.

i guess in the end, one can argue the effect his work with people is far more engaging and worthwhile than the "truth" that science pursues. i use quotations for truth, due to the relative nature of it in the context of science. what seems to be one thing today, is potentially a half-truth tomorrow.

So, 43 seconds, your contention is that people are sheep and want to be lead?

I have no problem with Deepak being popular,

I do, but then I have a problem with "ID" being popular too. Stupid, but probably inevitable.

he was one of the first brown faces to be widely recognised stateside. I've realised there are a lot of differences between the UK and America since I've frequented SM, and here's one - thinking Chopra is setting back the 'cause' of Desis, or giving us a bad name. Would Americans assume that all brown people think the same way simply because one high profile one says so? An honest question, I'm not poking fun.

I don't think he's setting back the 'cause' of Desis. I just think mainstream America wouldn't have given two hoots about him had he not been brown and had an "exotic" name. Chopra has certainly capitalized on this. It is unfortunate - there's that word again - that race and exoticism have ANYTHING to do with the discourse of ideas. I'd prefer that ideas were evaluated on their own merits, and not given more or less credence according to their proponents' ethnicity.

Being in the UK, you may be unaware of the embarassing chapter of American history known as the Great Hippification. This was an attempt to meld predominantly Christian-influenced whitebread American culture with the "inscrutable" Philosophies of the East, yielding such enduring tomes as "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and "The Dancing Wu-Li Masters" (which I learned is abhorred by physicists at CERN when I briefly worked there). Instead of justifying any stupid idea with Biblical scripture, it became chic to justify any stupid idea with "Eastern Philosophy." Granted, many non-stupid ideas were dispersed this way too.

I guess I'm just ranting. Something about the Hippy worship of all things "Asian" bugs me. I'll try to find a more articulate explanation why. I think there are many great things about various Asian strains of art, literature, and philosophy, (gc - I genuinely love the Ramayana) but that's because they're great on their own merits, not because they're "Eastern."

people are sheep and want to be lead

Yup.

I didn't really know anything about Deepak Lamb Chopra until just now. I read what raz was referring to - the quantum physics business and even the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. He's bonkers! But I still think that if he's helped certain people by being a 'lifestyle guru' or whatever, that's cool with me. The fact his quackery has done so well is due to the fact it's in America.

But Wiki does say this corker:

In March 2003, shortly before the US-led Invasion of Iraq, Chopra wrote an essay that suggested that a new Disney World theme park in the Middle East would help to lower tensions and that residents of Iraq should be provided free access to CNN, MTV and Nickelodeon [1] Chopra's proposals were widely ridiculed.

My main bone of contention is his spelling. His son is Gotham, right? Unless he's a big fan of Batman, why the hell didn't he spell it Gautam? Chump.

Nina P, I know what you mean exactly. Have you read Karma Cola by Gita Mehta? I think you'll love it.

He is a chump. But a shrewd, huckster-y chump. His sagacity has spawned a spirituality/lifestyle empire that encompasses his whole family. (Like Dr. Phil's son on that house AND personality AND relationship makeover show. He's qualified for any of this..HOW, exactly? )

Have you read Chopra's daughter's 'poetry'? vomit.

"So, 43 seconds, your contention is that people are sheep and want to be lead?"

cicatrix, if you had a remote understanding or sense of history, you would observe this as well.

then again, given your posts, in LTTE threads, that totally distort Ceylon's history, i would doubt it.

Hrmm, apparently you have not seen X-MEN. Don't you know every few millenia nature takes an evolutionary leap? I'm hoping my children have a super healing factor and/or telekineses. Here's to Deepak Chopra for keeping science alive! ;)

not at all 43 seconds. I have understood it well by observing the SL Tamils who allow the LTTE to lead them, sheeplike.

Y'll... dont just rant 'if' ID is BS or not - like polititians. Rather take aim at "what/why" he says - like educated people.

There is one book of Chopra's I like (The Return of Merlin, which stays firmly away from science).

The trouble, at least in this country, with setting up a debate between any scientific theory and pseudoscientific idea is that most people do not know what makes science science. So "science" just becomes a matter of what scientists are willing to say.

Three things make science:

1) Hypothesis testing through a data set that was not used to develop your hypothesis in the first place.

2) Repeatability. Your ideas/ experiments/ calculations are laid in a way that one can repeat it.

3) Peer-review. Clearly laying out its fragility too.

Science does have it prejudices, etc. Sometimes, it makes major mistakes like Lord Kelvin's calculation of age of earth. He did not incorporate the presence of radioactivity in the earth- it was not discovered at the time calculations were made.

Kush,

Three things make science:

Then there is "theory" - which is true until proven wrong. In many cases, theories are just a set of proof's which may not even be 'testable'. And most theories have critiques and loopholes that appear to fail them but may not "proove" the theory wrong.

abhi, the problem with science is that it doesn't provide society or humans with a methodology or structure that shows them a path of life, purpose, or simply, what to do.

43 - I agree with you on your post - just a correction - science does provide society with structure - so does religion. The core of each is the same - call it axioms, call it faith.

I dont disagree with the textbook samplings - reflects your individual quests respect that - but see... the inquisitive types drill deeper into more and more and if they dont become a professional student, they take a stance and say - I know this is the absolute, inviolable, invariate truth - and build a life on that stance.
Or... you can cut to the chase ... and say I dont need to know anything more than I need for my line of sight objectives and get into the game sooner...
Either way, it all comes together, no?

Y'll... dont just rant 'if' ID is BS or not - like polititians.

Hammer_Sickel your argument is backwards in this case. It is IDers that are politicians (many of them really are). Real scientists despise "debating" with politicians. I haven't seen a single "rant" from a scientist in this thread, but I have already seen some handwaving by the other side.

In many cases, theories are just a set of proof's which may not even be 'testable'.

Yes, the old argument that everyone on the losing side of this debate keeps in their hip pocket. Fortunately, as I pointed out in the post, these "theories" are testable. New techniques are being developed all the time adding more proof on the side of evolution. There has not yet been one single testable fact uncovered to bolster the ID side of the argument.

You might want to read this post on pharyngula countering the charlatan Chopra.

hahah, okay whatever cicatrix, whatever you say.

anyway, getting back to the discussion. i think we can take for granted that collectively, society seeks leadership, thus the creation of religion and political ideologies.

but with regards to the following Chopra has amassed, i think there's a lot to be said and recognized about what he delivers to his "people". and i think its all connected to the delusion more and more people are facing with their religions, where faith in God is placed higher than individual transformation.

while Dr C is being dismissed as a hack... just wanted to add a point in his favor... based on what I saw in an interview between he and Dennis Miller I chanced in to, one sad lonely night in a Kansas motel.
call him a huckster, call him a fool, but he is a far smarter man than I. Scientists work problems in a vacuum, theorizing, testing etc... this guy was doing it live and walked away with an acknowledgement of grudging admiration from Miller and the audience..anywya...

Scientists work problems in a vacuum, theorizing, testing etc.

Sorry but that statement is B.S. I hate how our society has turned scientists into these "mysterious black boxes." If people are too lazy to learn about science than how does it become the scientist's fault. Many science budgets are based on tax-payer or public money. You can't get more open than that.

abhi, unfortunately, that is the nature of man. the vast majority of humankind, myself included, are incapable of processing all the information that science spews and processes. so despite all the "truths" that science can provide us with, it fails the common man in providing something tangible and meaningful.

Abhi, not trying to be a fence-sitter since I'm pretty clearly pro-evolution and scientific knowledge..but I think society has turned scientists into these "mysterious black boxes" because science has moved far beyond what can be taught in high school or even basic college.

Newtonian Laws are disproved, atoms smashed, strings now wriggle...people are confused, and all these pop-science segments only the news just add tothe confusion - Blueberries are good! All berries cause cancer! Drink more wine! etc...all "according to leading scientific journals" of course.

Is this (the withdrawal from science and embrace of fuzzy creators) a symptom of an increasingly specialized society? I dunno...

that should've been:

pop science segments ON the news

I really want scientists to be sexy or complete loonies like Dr. Strangelove (I that one is one of my top 10 movies).

That is how I will marry a Bollywood/ Hollywood actress one day. I am serious.

PS: I think scientist do a bad job in educating people. I will do my bit.

Science = Tangible.

How about photoelectric effect, atomic theory, oil exploration, medicine, airplanes, trains, cars, computers and algorithms? In this modern world, almost everything is linked to science, directly or through engineering.

Kush

There is thing one should remember in science - scientists are contrarians. They work on principle of exclusion most of the time. However, once a while, wonderful thing happens when Einstein or Chandrashekhar's ideas are proved independently 60 years after they were formed.

Sometimes, theories and hypothesis are disproved. Sometimes, they are proved beyond doubt. If you notice quite often nobel prizes are shared by people - one who formed the idea and the one who proved it independently.

Science changes with time but the methodology of science is timeless.

Regarding evolution, look at how life evolves at mid-ocean ridges at a very short time due to extreme environment.

You guys are missing the big picture:

You can't be a God-man without a good sex scandal.

He got the Weekly Standard to retract statements; beat a sexual harassment rap; but couldn't prove blackmail by a former employee.

What do I take out all of this: NEVER pay a pro with plastic. That would the EIGHTH law of spirtual success.

More: His son was named Guatam, after the Ascetic One, but changed it to Gotham when he too entered the mediapolis. I was always thought I would name my first born Staten Island to pay homage to the forgotten boro. Represent

Sorry but that statement is B.S. I hate how our society has turned scientists into these "mysterious black boxes." If people are too lazy to learn about science than how does it become the scientist's fault. Many science budgets are based on tax-payer or public money. You can't get more open than that.

yer on tangent - my comment was scientists work as if they were playing chess - the problem's static - it doesnt bite back - that's the smarts of Dr C - in that he manipulates a multivariate entity with an innumerable number of counterpoints in real time

news just add tothe confusion - Blueberries are good! All berries cause cancer! Drink more wine! etc...all "according to leading scientific journals" of course.

the challenge is with the language. English (or whatever) can not cope with the communication needs.

Let me put it to you this way.
scenario A:
Ten bottles. Nine with water. One with poison.

scenario B:
Ten bottles. Each filled - nine parts water, one part poison.

Often times newspapers report scenario A - drinking from the bottle has a 10% probability of leading to death. The report is read as scenario B.

Ok. I have a couple of questions about the whole evolution thing:

As to fossil gaps, stating that it is not fossil gaps but rather gaps in the rock record :

Is this the reason that there is no completely fossilized record of an evolutionary being ? I completely understand the problems in fossilizing, (and finding) one celled organisms. But what about the trilobites ? the seperate periods of dinasuar development, and let alone the number of species alive today. None of whom have a complete fossil record. Now I understand the earth goes through changes. However it does seem somewhat odd that of all the species alive, and dead that no species thus far have an evolutionary map.

Second : I have a question as to how certain traits such as flight, or metamorphasis (such as a catapillar to a butterfly) could develop through survival of the fittest principles.

I really find such questions kind of disconcerting. Now it should be said, I am not a creationist by any means. However, I cant seem to reconcile the current evolutionary models with questions that I have. Got any ideas ?

For starters. This is a very easy read. Only high-school background needed.

Source: Science, July 1, 2005.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/89

Note: Reproduced from the original source.

How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?

Carl Zimmer*
For the past 50 years, scientists have attacked the question of how life began in a pincer movement. Some approach it from the present, moving backward in time from life today to its simpler ancestors. Others march forward from the formation of Earth 4.55 billion years ago, exploring how lifeless chemicals might have become organized into living matter.

Working backward, paleontologists have found fossils of microbes dating back at least 3.4 billion years. Chemical analysis of even older rocks suggests that photosynthetic organisms were already well established on Earth by 3.7 billion years ago. Researchers suspect that the organisms that left these traces shared the same basic traits found in all life today. All free-living organisms encode genetic information in DNA and catalyze chemical reactions using proteins. Because DNA and proteins depend so intimately on each other for their survival, it's hard to imagine one of them having evolved first. But it's just as implausible for them to have emerged simultaneously out of a prebiotic soup.

Experiments now suggest that earlier forms of life could have been based on a third kind of molecule found in today's organisms: RNA. Once considered nothing more than a cellular courier, RNA turns out to be astonishingly versatile, not only encoding genetic information but also acting like a protein. Some RNA molecules switch genes on and off, for example, whereas others bind to proteins and other molecules. Laboratory experiments suggest that RNA could have replicated itself and carried out the other functions required to keep a primitive cell alive.

Only after life passed through this "RNA world," many scientists now agree, did it take on a more familiar cast. Proteins are thousands of times more efficient as a catalyst than RNA is, and so once they emerged they would have been favored by natural selection. Likewise, genetic information can be replicated from DNA with far fewer errors than it can from RNA.

Other scientists have focused their efforts on figuring out how the lifeless chemistry of a prebiotic Earth could have given rise to an RNA world. In 1953, working at the University of Chicago, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey demonstrated that experiments could shed light on this question. They ran an electric current through a mix of ammonia, methane, and other gases believed at the time to have been present on early Earth. They found that they could produce amino acids and other important building blocks of life.

Today, many scientists argue that the early atmosphere was dominated by other gases, such as carbon dioxide. But experiments in recent years have shown that under these conditions, many building blocks of life can be formed. In addition, comets and meteorites may have delivered organic compounds from space.
Just where on Earth these building blocks came together as primitive life forms is a subject of debate. Starting in the 1980s, many scientists argued that life got its start in the scalding, mineral-rich waters streaming out of deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Evidence for a hot start included studies on the tree of life, which suggested that the most primitive species of microbes alive today thrive in hot water. But the hot-start hypothesis has cooled off a bit. Recent studies suggest that heat-loving microbes are not living fossils. Instead, they may have descended from less hardy species and evolved new defenses against heat. Some skeptics also wonder how delicate RNA molecules could have survived in boiling water. No single strong hypothesis has taken the hot start's place, however, although suggestions include tidal pools or oceans covered by glaciers.

Research projects now under way may shed more light on how life began. Scientists are running experiments in which RNA-based cells may be able to reproduce and evolve. NASA and the European Space Agency have launched probes that will visit comets, narrowing down the possible ingredients that might have been showered on early Earth.

Most exciting of all is the possibility of finding signs of life on Mars. Recent missions to Mars have provided strong evidence that shallow seas of liquid water once existed on the Red Planet--suggesting that Mars might once have been hospitable to life. Future Mars missions will look for signs of life hiding in under-ground refuges, or fossils of extinct creatures. If life does turn up, the discovery could mean that life arose independently on both planets--suggesting that it is common in the universe--or that it arose on one planet and spread to the other. Perhaps martian microbes were carried to Earth on a meteorite 4 billion years ago, infecting our sterile planet.

yer on tangent - my comment was scientists work as if they were playing chess - the problem's static - it doesnt bite back - that's the smarts of Dr C - in that he manipulates a multivariate entity with an innumerable number of counterpoints in real time

Well, that's whack too. The scientific foundation that is taught in school might be static, but scientists do NOT work as if a problem is static. You wouldn't have bridges that remain standing if engineers didn't consider a multitude of factors. Any science graduate student worth a damn has to consider a number of complexities in real time if they ever want to finish their thesis.

I'm not sure if Abhi was referring to that particular phenomenon dhaavak. That sort of misrepresentation has been around for donkey's, as someone in the medical world I'm sick of the latest wonder drug/killer drug/one-a-day wonder/carcinogenic cucumber etc etc. The media love to dramatise.

But what is a newer phenomenon has coincided with a zealous religious agenda in America - scientists are, as Abhi put it, regarded with suspicion. I do wholly accept that there are some unscrupulous scientists out there - it's remarkable how researchers working for pharmaceutical companies ALWAYS seem to find their drug is great - but most science is nothing more than people interested in finding out answers.

I don't buy the too much info argument cica. Newton's laws haven't been 'disproved', they just don't apply in extreme situations. What I mean is the science of day to day living is the same, nothing has changed in the last few decades - but with advances such as cloning, stem cell research and anything else that gets the bible belt's heckles up, science has been maligned.

This is so weird, I had this exact conversation with somebody famous the other day. I'm not going to name-drop, so I shan't say any more! But she agreed that the public's knowledge of science is not improving. Why that is, well who knows? We have more scientific TV than ever before.

I really find such questions kind of disconcerting. Now it should be said, I am not a creationist by any means. However, I cant seem to reconcile the current evolutionary models with questions that I have. Got any ideas ?

Andrew Jackson,
I don't mean to sound like a jerk but I truly didn't understand the first part of your question so I am skipping to the end.

As for the quote above, you say you can't "reconcile," but tell me honestly, have you searched for the answers to the questions you are asking me, and if so which "evolutionary models" are your refering to? I'll bet you the answer is no. You want me to answer your questions, and I most easily could because the examples you cite have already been explained pretty well in the literature. What you are saying though is that until someone just gives you the answer (which entails you not having to go to the library or do any work) you will be "disconcerted." I applaud your curiosity but I wish that you wouldn't feel disconcerted a priori.

Note: Andrew Jackson and others, please read. Very easy. More details, also go to http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/index.html

From http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/paleo_geo_evol.html

Written by John Pojeta and Dale Springer

Paleontologists generally come much too late to find anything but skeletons. However, they find something denied to the biologist — the time element. The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory (paraphrased from Kurtén, 1953).

In Darwin’s day, the fossil record was poorly known, but this is no longer true. A major focus for geologists is establishing the times of origin of the rock formations in the crust of Earth — the science of geochronology. For paleontologists, it is important to know which rock formations were formed at the same time and thus can be correlated, which rocks were formed at different times, and to put the formations into a time sequence from oldest to youngest in any area under study. Fossils are key to establishing the sequence of the ages of layered sedimentary rocks, and they are the direct proof of the changes that have occurred in living organisms through time on our planet.

In the mid-1600s, about 200 years before Darwin published his theory of evolution, the Danish scientist Nicholas Steno found that it was possible to establish the order in which layered rocks were deposited. He recognized that particles of sand, mud, and gravel settle from a fluid according to their relative weight. Slight changes in particle size, composition, or transporting agent result in the formation of layers in the rocks; these layers are also called beds or strata. Layering, or bedding, is the most obvious feature of sedimentary rocks. The study of layered (sedimentary) rocks is called stratigraphy.

Sedimentary rocks are formed particle by particle and bed by bed, and the layers are stacked one on another. Thus, in any sequence of undisturbed layered rocks, a given bed must be older than any bed on top of it. This Principle of Superposition is fundamental to understanding the age of rocks; at any one place it indicates the relative ages of the rock layers and of the fossils they contain. Because rock types such as sandstone, limestone, and shale are formed repeatedly through time, it is usually not possible to use rock types alone to determine the time in which rock formations were formed, or to correlate them to other areas. To determine the age of most sedimentary rocks, scientists study the fossils they contain.

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, English geologists and French paleontologists discovered that the age of rocks could be determined and correlated by their contained fossils. Rocks of the same age contain the same, or very similar, fossil species, even when the rock units extend over a large area or the exposures are not continuous. They also noted that there was a distinct, observable succession of fossils from older to younger rocks that did not repeat itself. These geoscientists were the first to use fossils to correlate the time of formation of the rocks in which the fossils occur. Three concepts are important in the study and use of fossils: (1) Fossils are the remains of once living organisms; (2) The vast majority of fossils are the remains of the hardparts of extinct organisms; they belong to species no longer living anywhere on Earth; (3) The kinds of fossils found in rocks of different ages differ because life on Earth has changed through time.

If we begin at the present and examine older and older layers of rock, we will arrive at
a level where no human fossils are found. If we continue backward in time, we successively come to layers where no fossils of birds are present, no mammals, no reptiles, no four-footed animals, no fishes, no shells, and no members of the animal kingdom. These concepts are summarized in the general principle called the Law of Fossil Succession. The kinds of animals and plants found as fossils change through time. When we find the same kinds of fossils in rocks in different places, we know the rocks are of the same age.

BB wrote

Newton's laws haven't been 'disproved',

The scientific foundation that is taught in school might be static, but scientists do NOT work as if a problem is static. You wouldn't have bridges that remain standing if engineers didn't consider a multitude of factors. Any science graduate student worth a damn has to consider a number of complexities in real time if they ever want to finish their thesis.

More..............READ THIS. Please......Please.........

From http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html

Examples of Evolution
The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features. Evidence from the fossil record is unique, because it provides a time perspective for understanding the evolution of life on Earth. This perspective is not available from other branches of science or in the other databases that support the study of evolution.

This section covers four examples of evolution from the incredibly rich and wonderful fossil record of life on Earth. We've chosen examples of vertebrates, animals with backbones, primarily because most of us identify more easily with this group rather than with sassafras or snails or starfish. However, we could have chosen any of many studies of evolutionary changes seen in fossil plants, invertebrates - animals without backbones such as the Chesapecten scallops (above), or single-celled organisms. We'll examine the evolution of legs in vertebrates as well as the evolution of birds, mammals, and whales.

Evolution of vertebrate legs
The possession of legs defines a group of vertebrate animals called tetrapods - as distinct from vertebrate animals whose appendages are fins, the fishes. In most fishes, the thin bony supports of the fins are arranged like the rays of a fan; hence these fishes are called 'ray-finned' fish. Trout, perch, and bass are examples of living ray-fins.

Certain fishes are called 'lobe-finned,' because of the stout, bony supports in their appendages. Lobe-finned fish first appear in the fossil record in early Late Devonian time, about 377 mya. The bony supports of some lobe-finned fishes are organized much like the bones in the forelimbs and hind limbs of tetrapods: a single upper bone, two lower bones, and many little bones that are the precursors of wrist and ankle bones, hand and foot bones, and bones of the fingers and toes that are first known in Late Devonian amphibian-like animals from about 364 mya. These animals were the first tetrapods. Many similarities also exist in the skull bones and other parts of the skeleton between Devonian lobe-finned fishes and amphibian-like tetrapods. In fact, in certain fossils the resemblances are so close that the definition of which are fish and which are tetrapods is hotly debated.

In 1998, a lobe-finned fish was described from Upper Devonian rocks from about 370 mya in central Pennsylvania (Daeschler and Shubin, 1998). This fish has bones in its forelimb arranged in a pattern nearly identical to that of some Late Devonian amphibian-like tetrapods. The pattern includes a single upper-arm bone (humerus), two forearm bones (radius and ulna), and many little bones connected by joints to the forearm bones in the positions of wrist and finger bones. However, the finger-like bones look like unjointed fin rays, rather than the truly jointed finger bones of tetrapods. Should the animal be called a fish or a tetrapod? It's hard to say. On the basis of the finger bones, it could be classified as a fish, whereas, on the basis of the large limb bones, the animal could be classified as a tetrapod.

Remember that we humans created the classification scheme for life on Earth, and we choose where to draw the boundaries. When dealing with transitional forms of life this is not an easy task!

Evolution of birds
Most paleontologists regard birds as the direct descendants of certain dinosaurs - as opposed to descendants of some other group of reptiles. Paleontologists and zoologists have long accepted that birds and reptiles are related. The two groups share many common traits including many skeletal features, the laying of shelled eggs, and the possession of scales, although in birds, scales are limited to the legs. Among modern birds, the embryos even have rudimentary fingers on their wings. In one modern bird, the South American hoatzin, Opisthocomus hoazin, the wings of the juvenile have large moveable claws on the first and second digits. The young bird uses these claws to grasp branches.

The descent of birds from dinosaurs was first proposed in the late 1860s by Thomas Henry Huxley, who was a famous supporter of Darwin and his ideas. Evidence from fossils for the reptile-bird link came in 1861 with the discovery of the first nearly complete skeleton of Archaeopteryx lithographica in Upper Jurassic limestones about 150 million years old near Solenhofen, Germany. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is clearly dinosaurian. It has a long bony tail, three claws on each wing, and a mouth full of teeth. However, this animal had one thing never before seen in a reptile - it had feathers, including feathers on the long bony tail. Huxley based his hypothesis of the relationship of birds to dinosaurs on his detailed study of the skeleton of Archaeopteryx.

One of the leading scholars of the bird-dinosaur relationship is John Ostrom of Yale University, who has summarized all the details of the skeletal similarities of Archaeopteryx with small, bipedal Jurassic dinosaurs such as Compsognathus. Compsognathus belongs to the group of dinosaurs that includes the well-known Velociraptor, of Jurassic Park fame, and Deinonychus, which Ostrom called the ultimate killing machine. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is so similar to that of Compsognathus that some specimens of Archaeopteryx were at first incorrectly classified as Compsognathus. Ostrom regarded Archaeopteryx as being on the direct line of descent of birds from reptiles.

New fossil specimens from Mongolia, China, Spain, Argentina, and Australia have added to our knowledge of the early history of birds, and many paleontologists now reckon that the turkey on our Thanksgiving tables is a descendant of the dinosaurs.

Evolution of mammals
The oldest reptiles having mammal-like features, the synapsids, occur in rocks of Pennsylvanian age formed about 305 mya. However, the first mammals do not appear in the fossil record until Late Triassic time, about 210 mya. Hopson (1994) noted, "Of all the great transitions between major structural grades within vertebrates, the transition from basal amniotes [egg-laying tetrapods except amphibians] to basal mammals is represented by the most complete and continuous fossil record.... Structural evolution of particular functional systems has been well investigated, notably the feeding mechanism... and middle ear, and these studies have demonstrated the gradual nature of these major adaptive modifications."

A widely used definition of mammals is based on the articulation or joining of the lower and upper jaws. In mammals, each half of the lower jaw is a single bone called the dentary; whereas in reptiles, each half of the lower jaw is made up of three bones. The dentary of mammals is joined with the squamosal bone of the skull. This condition evolved between Pennsylvanian and Late Triassic times. Evolution of this jaw articulation can be traced from primitive synapsids (pelycosaurs), to advanced synapsids (therapsids), to cynodonts, to mammals. In mammals, two of the extra lower jaw bones of synapsid reptiles (the quadrate and articular bones) became two of the middle-ear bones, the incus (anvil) and malleus (hammer). Thus, mammals acquired a hearing function as part of the small chain of bones that transmit air vibrations from the ear drum to the inner ear.

Evolution of whales
During the 1990s our understanding of whale evolution made a quantum jump. In 1997, Gingerich and Uhen noted that whales (cetaceans) "... have a fossil record that provides remarkably complete evidence of one of life's great evolutionary adaptive radiations: transformation of a land mammal ancestor into a diversity of descendant sea creatures."

The trail of whale evolution begins in Paleocene time, about 60 mya, with a group of even-toed, hoofed, trotting, scavenging carnivorous mammals called mesonychians. The first whales (pakicetids) are known from lower Eocene rocks, that formed about 51 mya; the pakicetids are so similar to mesonychians that some were misidentified as belonging to that group. However, the teeth of pakicetids are more like those of whales from middle Eocene rocks, about 45 mya, than they are like the teeth of mesonychians. Pakicetids are found in nonmarine rocks and it is not clear how aquatic they were.

In 1994, Ambulocetus natans, whose name means "walking whale that swims," was described from middle Eocene rocks of Pakistan. This species provides fossil evidence of the origin of aquatic locomotion in whales. Ambulocetus preserves large forelimbs and hind limbs with large hands and feet, and the toes have hooves as in mesonychians. Ambulocetus is regarded as having webbing between the toes and it could walk on land as well as swim; thus, it lived both in and out of the water.

From late Eocene time onward, evolution in whales shows reduction of the hind-limbs, modification of the forelimbs and hands into flippers for steering, development of a massive tail, etc.; all of these changes are modifications for the powerful swimming of modern whales. The fossil Rodhocetus from the upper Eocene rocks, about 38 mya, of Pakistan already shows some of these modifications.

Hello Kush Tandon,

"Science = Tangible."

"How about photoelectric effect, atomic theory, oil exploration, medicine, airplanes, trains, cars, computers and algorithms? In this modern world, almost everything is linked to science, directly or through engineering."

There seems to be the temptation to conflate science and technology here. They are separate enterprises.

It is as easily said that in this modern world everything is linked to jurisprudence, semiotics, mass media, etc. - or even the unique failures due to the rise of specialisation in the professions (i.e., science).

As a general observation, I will suggest that a beginning education in Science might be the realisation that it is not an all triumphant monolith ever in the vanguard of truth. It is as factious and riven by internicene conflicts and jealousies as any other endeavor. Over the period of several years, I had the opportunity to witness an example of this give-and-take nastiness at one of the premier Brain Imaging laboratories in the world. Collegues confirmed this situation as the norm and not the exception.

Abhi has noted the public aspect of science, especially in the instance of funding. It is just that phenomenon that irresistably radiates enormous pressure to publish untenable, speculative and quickly dismissed results.

regards,
Christopher

i know this is not a good representative sample of all browns, but this thread is what i'm talking about in terms of the central tendency of browns being secular. my kind of browns, educated, thoughtful, science savvy, etc. polls for several decades have shown that about 80% of americans prefer "equal time" (i even got into an argument about this issue with my earth science teacher in high school!). about 1/2 of americans reject evolutionary theory with no qualifications. but though this entry probably drew a lot of science people, nonetheless, the relative agreemant that ID is bunk is not that far from a thread on the secular site internet infidels.

if people want to learn about the new intelligent design vs. the old creationism robert pennock's Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism or paul gross'Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent are good. a more sympathetic treatment can be found (though not polemical necessarily) in By Design: Science and the Search for God. i did a survey on my weblog a while back contrasting the main players in intelligent design with those in the old creationist movement. my basic conclusion is that ID is a philosophical movement, not a scientific one. additionally, on a peculiar note, phil johnson, the doyen of the ID movement, has some post-modernist sympathies.

the argument that there have been scientific controversies in the past, etc. etc. ignores the fact that science is a ratchet or helical process. some controversies, like intelligent design, are from the 19th century. science has moved on, progressed (yes, i utter that word with pride!). reductio ad absurdum, obviously we won't be recapitulating the debate between the heliocentrists and geocentrists, similarly, it is the scientific community which by consensus draws the line between tenable and untenable hypotheses. they are not infallible, but their general tendency is toward conforming to the empirical data and predictive models. iz the best system we gotz. ID (and the post-modernist) have a critique,* but no alternative.

* please note, it seems clear that intelligent design is not just about evolution, it is an assault on "methodological naturalism." to be replaced by god knows what (literally).

Over the period of several years, I had the opportunity to witness an example of this give-and-take nastiness at one of the premier Brain Imaging laboratories in the world. Collegues confirmed this situation as the norm and not the exception.

yes, but one shouldn't map the day-in-day-out the social and political nastiness of science with the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy. people get nasty over competing hypotheses in new areas of science. you know this because you say you did a study. then you also know that nastiness in response to astrology or neo-creationism is a different beast altogether.

let's not get bogged down in typological thinking, science is not
1- A: absolutely objective, empirical and rational ...or...
2- !A.

the nastiness might give one a cosmetic impression of similitude, but the underlying cognitive motivations are not the same between those throwing barbs in a hotly contested field and the rearguard action that has to be taken against those who are anti-science. remember, as i note above, intelligent design is simply a subset of an overall philosophy which aims at the heart of modern science itself, methodological naturalism. this different than sniping between neuroscientists or particle physicists.

CJ says

As a general observation, I will suggest that a beginning education in Science might be the realisation that it is not an all triumphant monolith ever in the vanguard of truth. It is as factious and riven by internicene conflicts and jealousies as any other endeavor. etc.

sure thing... scientists are as petty as the worst of us and scientific fraud is on the rise... but how does it counter Kush's point that our day to day life is enriched by research?

Science has its prejudices and everything else......it is run by humans after all.

Over time, it self-corrects itself and therefore, peer-review. Subramanium Chandrashekar (Chandrashekar Effect), Wagner (Continental Drift Theory) were considered bad ideas initially but later data showed that were correct. In Chanrashekar case, Einstien and Paul Dirac immediately spoke up and said that his ideas were right-on.

Every technology starts as a scientific idea and endeavor. Some biggest examples are Einstein's photo-electric effect, Otto Han's chain reaction theory, Alan Turing's work on Computing.

I can go on and on. Publish or Perish........tell me, I am in the game.

polls for several decades have shown that about 80% of americans prefer "equal time"

This is exactly right. Americans as a cultural trait beleive in fairness which they often equate with equal time. That cultural trait has spilled into an arena in which it doesn't belong. Arguments saying that ID should be taught the same as Evolution seems fair to someone ignorant of the bigger picture. Unfortunately the general population is ignorant of the facts in this debate.

Hi Dhaavak,

"CJ says"

"As a general observation, I will suggest that a beginning education in Science might be the realisation that it is not an all triumphant monolith ever in the vanguard of truth. It is as factious and riven by internicene conflicts and jealousies as any other endeavor. etc."

"sure thing... scientists are as petty as the worst of us and scientific fraud is on the rise... but how does it counter Kush's point that our day to day life is enriched by research?"

I don't wish to counter Kush's sensible point. We all enjoy the benefits of scientific research -and suffer its harms. My intention was to bring a little balance.

Christopher

Science never seeks "truth" but the best possible explanantion about nature in a very methodical way.

The explanations change with time and also the people but the methods remain the same.

Chris, I agree, it is not a monolith and science should never be worshipped.

Note: That is why I always use the word "hypothesis testing"

yes, but one shouldn't map the day-in-day-out the social and political nastiness of science with the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy. people get nasty over competing hypotheses in new areas of science. you know this because you say you did a study.

the nastiness might give one a cosmetic impression of similitude, but the underlying cognitive motivations are not the same between those throwing barbs in a hotly contested field and the rearguard action that has to be taken against those who are anti-science. remember, as i note above, intelligent design is simply a subset of an overall philosophy which aims at the heart of modern science itself, methodological naturalism. this different than sniping between neuroscientists or particle physicists.in response to astrology or neo-creationism is a different beast altogether then you also know that nastiness

Hello Razib,

Your distinction regarding "rearguard action" is a useful one.

I don't, however, agree with your premise of methodological naturalism. That is something that has to established on philosophical grounds. Nothing I've seen persuades me of its special validity or superiority.

regards,
Christopher

"In many cases, theories are just a set of proof's which may not even be 'testable'."

For a theory to be _scientific_, there must be a way to disprove it.

For example "God exists" is not a scientific theory because there's no way to disprove it.

"faith in God is placed higher than individual transformation."

That pendulum swings back and forth over time.

Here we go folks. The grave becomes deeper:

Michael Shermer is the Publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com), the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, a monthly columnist for Scientific American (www.sciam.com), and the author of Why People Believe Weird Things, How We Believe, and The Science of Good and Evil. His latest book is Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown (all published by Henry Holt/Times Books. He posted a critical review entitled Skyhooks and Cranes: Deepak Chopra, George W. Bush, and Intelligent Design on this blog. My response to him is posted below. It is an ongoing dialogue with the hope that one day there will be reconciliation between science and transcendence.

I've met Shermer as he spoke at my research group's annual banquet. I am NOT an Atheist. At the end of his talk my faith was shaken. That is how it should be. The man is both intelligent and eloquent. His rebuttal to Chopra is a must-read in it's entirety which is why I won't excerpt. Chopra's response to Shermer?

Skepeticism often taints discussions by veering into cheap debate tactics and stubborn close-mindedness...

...However, Skeptic magazine lives in fantasy land if it feels that its position automatically trumps the greatest thinkers about consciousness or that the tradition of skepticism, which can count Freud, Marx, and other giants, automatically negates the other side.

Skeptic magazine lives in fantasy land? Ummmm. I also love how Freud and Marx were just made IDers by association.

I don't, however, agree with your premise of methodological naturalism. That is something that has to established on philosophical grounds. Nothing I've seen persuades me of its special validity or superiority.

So christopher, the preceding four centuries of advances made in natural sciences haven't persuaded you of its superiority? What other methods (ontological etc.) have you as options. When you go to the doctor to fix problems in your body, doesn't the methological naturalism that spawned the medical field not convince you? Is there any shamamic or faith-healing sessions that you would rather go to?

Hello Babloo,

Methodological Naturalism is a recent movement that is in no wise responsible for the origins or development of modern medicine.

Personally, I'm quite open to the various schools of philosophical naturalism. But other work in philosophy must be done before arriving at them. For instance, an acceptable epistemology must be established/explored a priori before developing explanatory models for observable events. Some scientists hate to admit this because it acknowledges philosophy as a world view competitor.

It also subordinates the work of science to other more central concerns. That is correct. One of the many limitations of science is that it does not provide a morality.

To take your example, if I abnegate or lose the moral choice to visit a physician, then I am rendered an automaton or something equally impotent; something that is discreetly without human agency or personality.

Science has nothing to do with this crucial situation.

regards,
Christopher

chris, you seem to be expanding this conversation a lot in terms of its scope and breadth. we come here to bury ID, not to explore the philosphical depths of the "idol" of science.

>> One of the many limitations of science is that it does not provide a morality.

Chris,

True, that is where your personal belief, philosophy, theism, and religion steps in. Please do not view science as anti-religion or all-encompassing. However, putting religious beliefs on the same metric as scientific methodology is very dangerous and harmful. Science has to govern itself in the best possible transparent way.

When Robert Oppenheimer quoted Gita at Trinity Hill or later, then he was seeking personal moralism through Gita at a difficult hour, yet he was finest scientist of 20th century. One of most brilliant India is Ramanujan, also a devout Hindu.

Millions of scientists do it through their own faith, and some in unconventional ways. Most importantly, their personal belief system is not brought upfront (it might color them in hidden ways) while they are doing science, medicine, and engineering.

Dr. Strangelove

I also love how Freud and Marx were just made IDers by association.

Wonder if the neo-cons know that they are now in bed with Marx.

1 cup Philosophy of the Mind
1 cup of psychology
1.5 cups of sociopsychology
1 lb world history
5 cups philosophy of religion - focus on Kierkegaard, Sartre, Camus, Swinburne, Socrates and Aristotle.

Stir. Shake. Consume.

Bloody creationists. Bloody atheist evolutionists. All too damn elementary and reactionary in their thinking.

Bloody atheist evolutionists. All too damn elementary and reactionary in their thinking.

Bloody round-earthers.

Bloody electromagnetists.

Bloody gravitists.

A alot of the comments on this site are just beating around the bush.

Cut the crap and recognize that Intellignet Design for what it is - Creationism in disguise, intelligently designed to bypass the 1987 supreme court desicion to ban the teaching of creationism in public schools.

I still don't get what the ID theory is about. Seems to me, all they do point out small inadequacies in evolutionary theory, usually by saying that X cannot be explained by evolutionary theory.

Basically all they are saying is we don't know so God (erm... the intelligent designer) did it.

This is not a scientifically valid argument, and should not be taught in science class. If you want to do a critique of naturalism in philosophy class that's fine by me.

B.S. epoch,

The reason this is getting play at all is that the current batch of ID advocates have gotten a little more sophisticated lately.

There was a good New Yorker article a couple of months ago on the work of people like Michael Behe. Allen Orr gives the more scientific supporters of the theory space to explain their ideas (before dismantling them).

Also, Radio Open Source did an interview with Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God) on ID a couple of weeks ago. You can download the MP3 and put it on your IPod here.

Abhi, the link to Shermer's article was excellent. You probably know that Amardeep covered some of this in his blog. The point that came out in the comments there is that Hinduism and Orthodox Judaism doesn't have this problem Shermer is mentioning. It is precisely because both religions (at least in Sanatana Dharma in Hinduism) the focus is on the Divine law rather than the Divine. In this case science becomes a natural pursuit of man. There is no competition between the two. Vigyana after all is the root Gyana modified by Vi (like Vishesh, specialized). It is one of the high roads (marga) to salvation.

Manish,
My beef isn't with science. My beef is with those who declare with total and unbridled confidence that evolution is the ultimate evidence for atheism.

Has there already been mention of the New York Times series on G/god and evolution? The first(?) article--Do God and Science Mix? More Now Saying Yes--in the series was published on Tuesday, 8/23, which is the same day that that blurble on arranged marriages got every South Asian in the universe... Excuse me, the "universe" as defined by both sides of the debate, to read the NY Times.

"My beef is with those who declare with total and unbridled confidence that evolution is the ultimate evidence for atheism."

Atheism doesn't need evidence, it is the default scenario. Deism makes up such silly stories, *it's* the one which needs evidence, and it has none, zip zero zilch nada. I believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

"Atheism doesn't need evidence, it is the default scenario. Deism makes up such silly stories, *it's* the one which needs evidence, and it has none, zip zero zilch nada."

Statements like that would scare me if two of my hobbies weren't apologetics and philosophy. However, thanks for the laugh.

I read that article 3 days ago...It is well written. Anyone will tell you that there are religious scientists and agnostics, atheists too. They all work with the same rules of scientific inquiry and their work is evaluated irrespective of their belief system.

However, remember the difference between science and belief [from the same article] as below:

"For Dr. Miller and other scientists, research is not about belief. "Faith is one thing, what you believe from the heart," said Joseph E. Murray, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1990 for his work in organ transplantation. But in scientific research, he said, "it's the results that count.""[Dr. Miller himself is religious]

That is why I went through exampple of religious scientists like Ramanujan, etc. in my earlier post. Newton wrote more about bible than physics.

In the same vien.....Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan were openly atheists....all of them fine scientist and human beings.

Please do not judge scientists by their belief system but by the quality of their work. I think NYT is full of themselves when they claim "new age" scientists are now finding religion too.

NB: NYT has already published 3 articles in last 1 month. Science and Nature has lot of ongoing material being published too. Usually, their stuff is more cutting edge.

"Statements like that would scare me if two of my hobbies weren't apologetics and philosophy."

Here's another one you should pick up: learn the meaning of "burden of proof." Regarding laughter, feeling a little threatened, my friend? 8^)

razib,

I have no agenda here other than learning what others think (and learning from others) and making my own contribution (such as it is).

Kush Tandon,

I agree with your last comments. Thank you for the Oppenheimer anecdote.

Sandeep

I like your recipe, but I definitely have to promote Aristotle and Socrates to the front of that list!

Christopher

My beef is with those who declare with total and unbridled confidence that evolution is the ultimate evidence for atheism.

well, abhi's post said he was a deist. so again, trying to move the post off topic.

God & the scientists.

god and the social scientists.

snip:

larson & witham general survey of american scientists in 1996:

Believe in personal God?
yes/no/not sure
39.3% 45.3% 14.5%

larson & witham general survey of american national acedmy of sciences scientists (ie; elite) in 1998:

Believe in personal God?
yes/no/not sure
7.00% 72.2% 20.8%

(deists would fall into the "no" in this survey since the deity is not a personal god)

you know, i don't mind richard dawkins rather strident atheism, because i think there is a double standard at work. dawkins aggressive atheism is obnoxious, but the fire & brimstone sermons by religious intolerants is often not held up the same opprobrium because religious ideas are considered privileged. it isn't like dawkins is ever consulted by tony blair, but (until he retired) billy graham has had a pipeline to every president since nixon.

Yamuna,
lol not in the least, dear. But since you asked...

Tekton
Kierkegaard
Swinburne
Plantinga

Concerning spirit/mind/consciousness:
Read here..

Although, it must be said that no amount of links can really verbalize personal experience. Though, that was probably obvious.

Tekton

Sorry, messed up on that link.

Thanks, boy, you've read many great Wikipedia entries. Will you speak for yourself, Cyrano?

with all due respect, who are you abhi to call out anybody? not sure that i've seen you published anywhere. not sure that i've seen you recognized by the likes of time magazine, institutions, garnted awards and grants, honored by the likes of amit goswami. it's so easy to take potshots from the perch of a blog where the only filter is yourself. just unfortunate you need to tear down those that have blazed the trail for you to do it. you should be ashamed.

just unfortunate you need to tear down those that have blazed the trail for you to do it. you should be ashamed.

with all due respect, what the hell are you talking about?

with all due respect, who are you abhi to call out anybody?

With comments like that I'd say "I'm your daddy."

gentlemen like Deepak have created platforms for minorities like us to be taken seriously. some respect would be in order. or you could just keep up with your jokes, "daddy."

My name is Gotham - Deepak's son - and a fan (still :)) of your site. Ironically, so is (was :() my dad since I recently pointed your site out to him. Seriously, despite your attacks I'm sure he'll stick. Noble defense Rahul - the fam apprciates. Gents - curious if you've read any of the books or don't feel the need to? The Nobel Society has recognized my dad and made him legit - anymore and I sound defensive. Probably already too late.

later

gc

gentlemen like Deepak have created platforms for minorities like us to be taken seriously.

? again, say what? he doesn't represent brown people, he is a brown person who represents his own views.

The Nobel Society has recognized my dad and made him legit

Really? Googling Nobel Prize (Nobel Society gets nothing) and Deepak Chopra immediately gets me references to him winning the 1998 Ig Nobel Prize for Physics, for his "unique interpretation of quantum physics as it applies to life, liberty, and the pursuit of economic happiness." ;)

The only other references I can quickly find are the fact he edited a book about Tagore, a Nobel Literature winner. Regardless, I don't doubt Chopra is fine for new age people who dig the eastern spiritual stuff, I've got no beef with that, but come ON! Get with the 21st century. How can you possibly defend someone whose fuzzy pseudoscience is SO EASILY disproven by actual facts? What does he stand to gain by promoting something as backwards as ID? I love my daddy too and think he's the smartest guy I know, but sometimes his opinions are a bit weird and his rural upbringing comes out when we least expect it. ;)

>> The Nobel Society has recognized my dad and made him legit - anymore and I sound defensive.

There is no Nobel Society, Padre. There is "The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences". I do not think they make people legit, aka mafiaso style.

OK maybe, for his ideas on Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

I have no objection to his "new age" spiritualism, it fits very well with Amardeep/ Cicatrix's Indiaphilia. Can I afford him?

But DNA, Evolution, Quantum Physics, No.

"Andrew Jackson,
I don't mean to sound like a jerk.."

Classic. A statement followed by the empirical evidence of its antithesis. Maybe I should have put empirical, and antithesis in quotes ? Relax, im kidding. I'll admit my questions were pretty muddled. The real questions I had deal mostly with the orgins of flight, mostly in insects. I have read mostly what google has to offer, which isnt much. I still feel horribly disconcerted. After a thorough blog lashing, what is one to do ? "I" "guess" "its" "back" "to" "a" "library" "for" "me". priori.

After a thorough blog lashing, what is one to do ?

I didn't mean it to be a lashing. I will look for a paper for you when I get to school.

Also try the "Google Scholar" search engine

this is the real Gotham Chopra. Someone turned me onto my supposed posting here last night. Unfortunately it wasn't me. Not sure what the "Nobel Society" is either. Don't feel any need to defend my dad - his record speaks for itself. And congrats for using his name to drive traffic: well done.

There was a good New Yorker article a couple of months ago on the work of people like Michael Behe. Allen Orr gives the more scientific supporters of the theory space to explain their ideas (before dismantling them).

Yes, but as the comments on this thread seem to indicate, the vast majority of the debate is not about the scientific merits of the Intelligent Design vs Evolution, but rather about the place of science and religion in society.

That is may be a fair debate, but it has no place in any science class.

Have a look at this nightline episode the guy arguing for intelligent design ultimately concedes that the reason for teaching ID is political / religious not scientific.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002290.html

Would the real Gotham Chopra please stand up?

According to our system, comments #89,91,92, and 99 were left by the same IP address. More than likely a prankster whom we will ban if they continue with their foolishness.

some of you may find this amusing.

http://www.venganza.org/

some of you may find this amusing.

Yep, check the bottom of my original post.

Abhi, Would love to hear your break this one down... And, your credentials when responding would be appreciated. Thank you.
Aditya

From Deepak Chopra to Normal Creature at www.intentblog.com

Dear Normal Creature,

I am going to reply to your points one at a time without using pejorative terms like agenda and propaganda, a courtesy that we should all extend to each other. I majored in biology and am a board-certified internist and endocrinologist with an advanced specialization in Neuroendocrinology. I took my training at Harvard affiliated hospitals and teach at Harvard once a year. I hesitated in mentioning my credentials; however, since you suggested that I take an elementary course in biology, I wanted to share this information with you. I pursue scientific topics as even-handedly as I can, but at the same time I feel that falling in line with current orthodoxy isn't a virtue. Being open-minded and asking interesting questions, on the other hand, is a definite virtue, in my mind.

Also, for the sake of integrity at this site, I would appreciate posters doing at least a minimum of fact-checking before they write. Divya, for example, might have entered the two words “teleology biology" at Google. If she had done that, she would have been able to read several hundred entries that fully justify using the notion of teleology in biological discussions.

Now, on to the points raised by you.
1. There were no 'leaps'. A self-replicating molecule didn't evolve in a day. It took one or two billion years of trail and error for a self-replicating molecule to evolve. What other 'leaps' or you talking about?

Reply: A leap is a jump from one state to another without intervening steps. It doesn't matter how long Nature took to create a new emergent property. When hydrogen and oxygen fused to form water, the liquid nature of water, as opposed to the gaseous nature of hydrogen and oxygen, was a leap into a new property. Likewise, DNA's ability to replicate itself was a leap. There were no intervening steps...how could there be? Either a molecule can replicate itself or it can't. I do mention crystals, which can add to their lattices by drawing in new atoms. This resembles replication, and certain chemical reactions do turn into chain reactions. However, in organic chemistry "a localized molecular assemblage should be considered alive if it continually regenerates itself, replicates itself, and is capable of evolving."

It is self-evident that life constitutes a quantum leap from inorganic chemistry.

2. Mutations are completely random. Only positive or neutral mutations survive. In fact, most of the surviving positive mutations start out as neutral mutations. Over a period of time, a random accumulation of such neutral mutations might turn out to be positive for the survival of the organism.

Reply: This is pure speculation since the fossil record doesn't contain primordial DNA, and mutations must occur on the genetic level. How do we know how ancestral DNA mutated if we can't see any? There is DNA in recent Ice Age remains, but again we don't have enough to spot a line of mutations for good or ill. Nor has anyone actually observed your supposed "neutral mutations" becoming positive. If the definition of "positive" is survival, a "neutral" mutation in the past would have to survive to be found. The actual point is statistical and has nothing to do with randomness versus purpose. Statistically, we do not currently observe many mutations in animal or plant populations to begin with, and those that are observed tend to benefit the species. At the genetic level, again, one does not see DNA constantly mutating in the gross way that gave rise to such dramatic innovations as wings or flight. To say that it takes a long time begs the question.

In the field of sociobiology there are interesting speculations that DNA may know more about its own survival than previously given credit for. The classic example, from Edward O. Wilson at Harvard, is altruism, the sacrifice of one batch of DNA to benefit an entire society, as when a honeybee dies to protect the hive.

Since no one will observe how DNA mutated over millions of years, the basic issue may have to do with parsimony, a principle in science. If two theories compete to explain the same phenomenon, the one that is simpler is favored over the one that is complex. Randomness is a very roundabout way to explain evolutionary innovations, while intelligence is simple. It may prevail in the end once the kinks in random theories become too great, just as the Ptolemaic universe became too complicated and was replaced by the simper Copernican system.

Dismissing the question, which is your chief mode of argument, is a weak approach.

3. Evolution does not stop. As you yourself admit, even sharks and turtles are diversifying constantly. You just may not see any difference in their appearance. If environmental conditions change considerably from what they are now, some of the sharks might have an advantage over the others, and then - you might see a difference. Also, the rate of evolution (mutations) is also adaptive. Some systems have evolved to control their mutation rates, and 'repair' the errors, simply because it turned out to be advantageous for them. Some others (like viruses) have absolutely no correction mechanisms, and very erroneous replication mechanisms, since that turned out to be advantageous for them. The host learns to identify virus in a matter of months, and the virus has to continuously modify itself in order to escape being recognized by the host.

Reply: The taxonomy of insects, reptiles, and amphibians has been firmly set in place--or stopped--for hundreds of millions of years. The fact that we have new kinds of butterflies, for example, doesn't mean that any of them aren't insects, just as all sharks are sharks, no matter how big or small they become.

Your other point, that species adapt by finding specific niches is a self-evident fact in evolution. It does no harm and commits no intellectual crime to ask exactly how this is done, given the incredibly complex interrelationship in eco-systems. I was asking a question posed by ecologists every day.

4. Again, there are no 'simultaneous' mutations. There are parallel mutations. When members of the species are separated into non-mixing groups due to environmental/geographic factors, each group evolves independently, and might find a different solution for the same problem.

Reply: It is a basic necessity in current Darwinism that gene pools must be separate and unmixed, yet we only have to look close to home, at the admixture of Neanderthals an Cro-Magnons, or of hominid species and lower primates, to see that this kind of genetic isolation may be a fiction. In the ocean, aren't all fish basically in the same soup? By using the word "simultaneous" I meant what you mean by parallel. To say that scales, feathers, and hair are simple adaptations to different environments makes little sense, since birds, mammals, and reptiles al share many of the same environments.

You have reduced a complex adaptation to a simple mechanism that wont' fit.

5. (a) What is intelligence? Any body who thinks humans are 'intelligent' is completely stupid. An minute-old baby crocodile is already hunting. A year old human baby doesn't even know what it can eat and what it can not. The crocodile has adapted for 'programmed behavior'. Primates, on the other hand, have been programmed to 'observe and learn'. Two different adaptations for the same problem. None of them is superior to the other.
(b) The blue green algae can not survive without excessive moisture. When a wet land goes through periods of drought, part of the algae there that adapted to deal with dry spells is more likely to survive, and eventually becomes some thing that looks completely different from the algae. Some cells of the blue-green algae always would find them selves in a wetland or sea, and continued to survive. And hence, you see algae even today.

Reply: I have no reply to someone who believes human beings aren't intelligent. The fact that you can write and understand language is prima facie disproof of your assertion. That you are disillusioned with humanity is an age-old concern everyone shares.

6. That you see some thing repeated again and again does not imply that some one designed it. It is most likely the case that is the only structure that supports the requirements. for example, all planets and stars are nearly spherical in shape. Some one did not sit and carve them. It just happens to be the steady state shape of large objects.

Reply: Yes, basic physical laws apply throughout Nature, which is why we can rely on them. But advanced design, such as the helix, gets repeated under wildly differing circumstances. Fractals arise in elegant patterns out of apparently random interactions of basic particles. Given all that, my question remains valid. How does something like a spiral repeat itself in sunflowers, chambered nautiluses, and galaxies, given that there is no obvious physical law to bind such diversity? I offer that the binding is intelligence.

You are arguing backward from your own premise, that intelligence couldn't account for anything; therefore, any other explanation, however weak, must apply. You even find that the absence of a credible explanation is better than resorting to a different mode of explanation, which is all I'm doing. Sometimes in science you have to shift gears.

7. Oxygen does not 'become a part of cellular machinery”. It is the cellular machinery that evolved to integrate oxygen in its functions. It is like saying your pen (or keyboard) is intelligent and is writing. It is you that is writing. The pen did not acquire any intelligence.

Reply: I am afraid you are arguing my point. The ability of a molecular machine to precisely fit in an oxygen atom is the same ability as the oxygen atom fitting in. In both cases we see an inorganic chemical entering the organic world. Your analogy doesn't apply since pens and typewriters aren't made of the same things as human beings. In any case, if you want your analogy to apply, you are asserting that intelligence in our brains uses pens and typewriters to carry out certain tasks. A cell is using oxygen in the same way.

You observe intricate activity that is precisely coordinated while insisting that at all costs it must not be called intelligent.

8. Again, there are no leaps. Whole systems did not appear at once. Read (2) again.

Reply: Systems do appear as a coordinated whole; in fact, that's what makes them systems and not accidental juxtapositions. Ecosystems are interrelated, and although parts of any ecosystem change and evolve, the ability of overall balance to remain constant hasn't been explained. The equivalent in the human body is homeostasis. Inorganic systems can return to balance in a mechanical way without any need to call them intelligent, but the human body preserves balance simultaneously on dozens of fronts. As a specialist in hormones, I can assert this without equivocation. The body's ability to do this has given rise to rich speculation on the presence of intelligence in many areas outside the brain, including the immune system and digestive tract.

You dismiss the question without reference to any research past or present. I don't know in what way that is considered respectable debate.

9. Dodo, Kiwi etc. were fit enough to survive in the environmental conditions that they survived/survive in. DNA has evolved to create an environment around itself that's conducive for its survival/(survival through replication). Survival of the organism is secondary. Survival of the species is the primary goal.

Reply: I don't quite know what you mean by saying that "DNA creates an environment," an odd proposition since DNA actually responds to the environment. Or are you referring to the Gaia hypothesis, which speculates that DNA created the entire ecosystem? But "survival of the fittest"has long been considered a tautology since any species that survives would be considered fittest ,and the only criterion for fittest is survival. We have no way of differentiating a positive or negative mutation in many cases except to look at how it turned out in the long run. The advent of ecology and sociobiology testifies to the need for a new, more sophisticated explanation of adaptation. I merely asked if intelligence doesn't answer these issues better? It can't, of course, as long as one is a strict materialist.

But materialism isn't the end-all and be-all of thought. It is a prevailing paradigm waiting for the next paradigm to arrive, which will only succeed if it can explain phenomena better than the current paradigm. I happen to enjoy looking over the horizon at the next paradigm. You enjoy defending the current one, apparently under the belief that final truth has been attained.

Will his credentials serve to validate or detract from the quality of his answer?

Actually, yes Deepa, credentials would be helpful.

Lets see if Abhi actually can respond with valid arguments, or if he is joining the band wagon and making lots of noise for the sake of it. To me, that would be pathetic, as it is the easy way out. But, I will not make any assumptions yet.

Whatever you want to say about Deepak Chopra, he is a smart man and would be an idiot to talk about things he doesnt know about. He would not risk his reputation on that.

Its easy to say that someone doesn't know what they are talking about, but does Abhi?

I personally know nothing about this topic, so am open to both sides.

Credential Wars: First, Do not Lie, and then do Hide Beneath Them

1) First, Do not Lie
Perhaps one of the Harvard Graduates will “correct” me, if I am wrong anywhere.

Chopra claims: I took my training at Harvard affiliated hospitals and teach at Harvard once a year [www.intentblog.com].

From Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra]:
Chopra is a trained physician and was board-certified in internal medicine and endocrinology. According to Stephen Barrett, an outspoken critic of Chopra, he graduated from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in 1968, and after interning at a New Jersey hospital, trained for several more years at the Lahey Clinic in Burlington, Massachusetts and at the University of Virginia Hospital. He later became chief of staff at New England Memorial Hospital.

Lahey Clinic is not Harvard affiliated. No connection between New England Memorial Hospital and Harvard University is established.

Lahey Clinic Medical Center is a teaching hospital for Tufts University School of Medicine [http://www.lahey.org/About/]. In my research at Harvard University Website [http://hms.harvard.edu/hms/home.asp], I do not find any link between New England Memorial Hospital and HMS Affiliated Hospitals & Institutions, unless the name of the hospital has changed since then.

Granted: Deepak Chopra has given seminars at Harvard only as a Guest Faculty [http://cme.hms.harvard.edu/cmeups/pdf/00251264.pdf] but there is no proof of formal affiliation to Harvard University.

2) Second, Do not hide in Degrees

Satyendra Nath Bose, one of the greatest mathematical physicist never had a PhD but worked with Albert Einstein (Bose-Einstien Condensate), Madame Curie and other luminaries and left a legacy for a lifetime.

“Upon his return to Dhaka (Univeristy), he was made a professor in 1926. He did not have a doctorate, and so ordinarily he would not be qualified for the post, but Einstein recommended him.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Nath_Bose]

It is not the credentials that matter, it is the ideas and the rigor. Deepak Chopra is misusing his credentials.

Since, we are at credential wars, I would like a biologist take a crack at his assumptions and ideas. This said, my credentials, PhD (Geophysics) and currently research scientist at College of Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Just google = Kush Tandon

Title Correction for above post:

Credential Wars: First, do not lie, and then do not hide beneath them.

You want to be an academic snob, lets do the whole deal. I want to see Deepak Chopra's track record in peer-reviewed publications.

I repeat "peer-reviewed" publications. Deepak Chopra and his apologists are walking on a very thin ice.

Dr. Strangelove

Abhi, Would love to hear your break this one down... And, your credentials when responding would be appreciated. Thank you. Aditya

Aditya, in the future, when asking someone to present their "credentials," its best not to do so while you remain an anonymous coward. Also I have never attacked Deepak Chopra the person, only his recent arguments. I don't read him but I don't read Rushdie either. Everyone has different tastes. Here are my credentials anyways:

Age 3- I saw Star Trek 1 at the drive-in. My interest in science began.

Age 5- I made a kick-ass diorama of a scene from the Jurassic in kindergarten. My interest in evolution began. This girl Kim, who I had a mad crush on wasn't impressed though.

Age 10- They used to bus me to another school every Thursday for "gifted and talented children." We solved puzzles and practiced telekinesis.

Age 14- I took the test to gain entry to MENSA and passed with an IQ of 154. I don't even know what MENSA stands for though.

Age 17- I won first place in the state of Maryland Physics Olympics competition in the "catapult event." All the girls were on my jock.

Age 17- I worked as a telemarketer and was almost fired after 3 days because nobody would buy from me. Although this isn't a good "credential" I am still traumatized by it and wanted to provide full disclosure.

The rest of my accomplishments have admittedly been minor.

Now, to get to the issue at hand. The debate in question is long over. In the blogosphere things move very fast young one (although not faster than the speed of light which would be impossible...except for possibly tachyons). Go to technorati.com and search for this debate. See what comes up. Judgement has been rendered.

I hope you don't honestly think that a single guy like me, still in his twenties (just barely), is going to spend his Friday night at home wasting his time typing up a response to yesterday's news? No. I am going to go out tonight and hopefully, maybe, finally, I'll meet a nice girl with whom I will one day share some DNA. Given my eccentricities I have no doubt that we shall produce X-Men. This will demonstrate that man isn't a perfect "design" and that we still do evolve.

"Actually, yes Deepa, credentials would be helpful."

I suppose this is because...

"I personally know nothing about this topic"

...and you hope that weighing credentials will help you understand how good his answers are?

No help for it but to research, I'm afraid.

Thanks, Abhi. At least, I know what you are all about. Its instant for you - no depth.
Wont bother you anymore.
Kush, you seem to have a great backgound. Would be great to hear your arguments on this issue -- that is, if you dont think its old news. Honestly, would love to hear your thoughts based on Deepaks responses.

Aditya,

What I will do is write a small, yet not loaded with jargon opinion on earth history, time, and life from a geological perspective in a week or so (I do have a day job, karate, other important activities, etc.). I honestly believe that scientists are to be blamed quite a bit for not presenting their ideas clearly to non-scientists. I can only give an insightful geological critique. I’ll inform here, and post it at Razib’s and my blog.

My knowledge of biology is very rudimentary. Deepak Chopra’s ideas presented here are mostly biology, and therefore, I am not the right person for point-by-point analysis. Yet, you can read my piece (get an earth scientist’s perspective) and from other people (far more insightful than me) too in Scientific American, Science, and Nature magazines. Some of these magazines have parts open access to all via web (no subscription needed).

I do not intend to pick fights over Deepak Chopra, if it was Aishwarya Rai, then the gloves are on………….

Dr. Strangelove

I've been studying both sides of this debate the past few days. Neither, to my mind and, admittedly, limited reading (so far), extricates itself from a priori postulation.

The following might summon the old controversy about the two cultures - C.P. Snow's book of the same title is among the most boring and poorly written bits of blather ever unmeritoriously applauded - but experience as a reader of world literature, history, poetry, and difficult philosophical/cultural texts instructs me that many scientifically trained individuals possess meagre skills in the interpretive and explanatory arts.

The badly, badly written stuff (jejune argumentation, baseless self-congratulation/bravado, embarassing sentence structure mis-direction, etc.) I've been enduring to get a hold on this topic only confirms this.

In my opinion, in the act of engagement, neither the evolutionists nor the ID advocates get much past question-begging in interpreting evidences that carry a very high noise to signal ratio.

The primordial world is gone forever. In its wake, adversarial litigants harass each other. The details of the demise and the meaning of the present inheritance are in contention. The death, like any other, is final, and a largely disintegrated and indecipherable will remains to fuel the hostilities.

Perhaps my father, a broadcast engineer extraodinaire, might characterize this inciting testament as an unclear transmission due to a meaningfully weak source radiation.

How the combatants characterize themselves is an interesting spectacle in itself.

Aditya - Abhi has provided link after link after link dealing with this topic (scroll up this page), and you then accuse him of lacking depth because he doesn't want to spend a few hours personally addressing some issue you have? You're really offensive. The man works in aerospace engineering! At least he had the sense to answer you tongue-in-cheek rather than rip you a new one. Go to the library if you want answers, or sign up for a basic science class at your local community college.

My bf is a graphic designer and I'm a video editor. How would you advise non-scientists to go about having X-Men kiddies, Abhi? ;)

I'll meet a nice girl with whom I will one day share some DNA

(I have nothing to say, I just wanted to post up that line again)

The primordial world is gone forever. In its wake, adversarial litigants harass each other.

Fortunately that is incorrect Christopher. That sentence, once corrected should read, "The primordial world on Earth is gone forever." That is why the field of astrobiology exists (which is by the way what my current degree is in). Take for example Saturn's moon Titan. Many scientists believe that Titan's present day atmosphere is like that of Earth's primitive. Whether or not that is true is testable. Even if we can't find the chemistry that led to the origin of life here on Earth (because all the molecules are highly soluble) we can still hope to find it elsewhere. When trying to prove things which people assume are "unprovable" one is only limited by their lack of imagination and curiosity.

How would you advise non-scientists to go about having X-Men kiddies, Abhi? ;)

amurrican atheist, I have only one piece of advice to that question. Lots of practice :)

Remember that episode where Q took Picard back to see the first amino acids forming a protein? I bet it looked NOTHING like that.

Is there any truth to the following?

http://www.fixedearth.com/theoretical_science_establishmen.htm ... ?

Hi Abhi,

Thanks for the useful correction.

Among the great things that scientific enterprise inspires are the imagination and curiosity you cite.

Anyone should ponder, however, whether they are enough to overcome the base-line incredulity inherent in an attempt to divine the meaning of ambiguous at hand signatures from ever more distant ones.

In other words, I'm skeptical.

It is easy to be skeptical or pessimistic a priori about science's ultimate ability to investigate certain questions.

But if a body of work exists regarding one of these questions, it is only responsible to get a sense of that body of work rather than retaining the a priori skepticism from an aloof perspective.

deepa, induction justifies induction? :)

Actually Deepa,

My experience in engaging different canons of knowledge is that it is reasonable for skepticism to be strengthened by inconclusiveness.

That is not aloofness. It is sensible and mature judgement.

To me, it is irresponsible and foolhardy to rhetorically buttress obscure and massagable data from a sanctioned and orthodox position.

That is akin to the Thomistic tactics of the 13th century.

chris, what are you trying to say? your responses are extremely eloquent and clearly erudite, but i doubt that deepa was trying to say anything that resembled an apology for thomism. frankly, trying to track your comments is like following a a windy trail where you compresses and conflate various issues and comments into a particular construct in mind that you have.

it doesn't seem to me that anyone here is promoting scientism or vulgar logical positivism. if you have a weblog, i'd like to read your positive position rather than merely critiques. for example, my impression from just your responses to kush tandom's rather provisional and moderate (to my mind) comments is you would think he was a true believer of the vienna circle.

the original point of this post was rather mundane. on a log scale the frequency of scientists who credit intelligent design is trivial. we weren't making any grand existential or ontological claims.

you know science and technology (and yes, i don't think distinguishing the two is totally kosher, there are even fields like biotechnology where the two now work simultaneously) by its fruits. a particular "canon," which perhaps can be worked back to liebniz via von neuman et al results in the computer which you are viewing my comments with at this moment. that's the pith i think of the comments about science from scientists. we certainly don't need to be lectured on the sloppy manner in which science is done or the ethical lapses committed by many scientists, we've seen the massaging of data and adherence to weak hypotheses.

Hello Razib,

I've learned from your remarks, especially (a lot) in the Great Balls of Fire thread.

I also had a good laugh reading your conceit about "Deepa...an apology for thomism". I admit Ican be undisciplined in the unlikely associations I bring to bear on an issue. That reflects my own omnivorous curiosity and reading/learning.

As far as my own positive postion, you make a fair request. Basically, I agree with the direction of Abhi's own personal philosophical/religious conclusions that are detailed in his original blog.

Probably I would call myself a strict materialist. But in my view, that does not preclude the idea of God or of something "higher" (If you will permit me this metaphoric language for now.). I do not believe that science is the single or (contra to Abhi) priority source for information about existence.

As an important aside, I must state that I am very suspicious of reductionism in science. Jacques Barzun, who is a singular treasure, has succinctly summarized the problems with this methodology in his majesterial "From Dawn to Decadence". I can only fail here in trying to paraphrase his already razor-like treatment.

Science is a contributor to a network of kinds of knowledge that also includes essential input from philosophy and (most importantly) human experience as well.

And so, I've read with profit both E.O Wilson and Annie Dillard. I've had a harder time with S.J. Gould and Steven Weinberg because, in spite of all the applause, I find their respective prose styles and reasonings not completely satisfactory.

Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that there are varieties of skepticism. A continuum of skepticism might run from extreme to very modest. On the extreme end you will find the withdrawn, unengaged, and unconvincible. Toward the very modest end you will find the open, investigating, and interested. I locate myself far nearer the latter point.

A continuum of skepticism might run from extreme to very modest.

continuity is important, my impression of your comments is that two often we (you, kush, abdhi, i, etc. etc.) are shadow-boxing perceived types. that is, kush says A, you infer B, respond with C and kush responds with D based on his perception that your response was E, etc. etc.

i don't make grand ontological claims for the importance of science, which is a social enterprise that is fruitful because of its particular self-correcting mechanisms. my own interests are relatively wide, and i don't have contempt for history and the humanities, and my own worldview tends to be synthesis. but,

1) in the narrow sense, the post was about intelligent design.

2) a few people on this thread have a misimpression about what 'intelligent design' is.

3) on the other hand, some of the perfunctory and truncated responses to #2 elicited in some a response (you, the fellow who cited alvin-pressupositionalist-plantiga) as if abhi et al were promoting a quasi-dawkinsian is -> ought paradigm. i've read some philosophy, but i didn't want to get side-tracked because the basis focus of this thread was the problem of the ubiquity of #2.

4) so, perhaps you are correct that some scientific inclined people make grand claims for their enterprise which are not ontologically justified (i view the world as based on provisional operational "truths"). nevertheless, the problem before us is #2, the fact that a great majority of the public perceives intelligent design as legitimate science when it is by common sense (ie; the overwhelming preponderance of scientists).

Hi Razib,

I like your well-put evaluation of aspects of this discussion.

You are right about "shadow-boxing." It's also a useful metaphor.

My original reaction (you probably got this)was to the logism "pseudoscience" in the title. Even if I was in perfect agreement with Abhi, I would advise against that. I know that this usage is firmly in the vernacular, but that does not alter my resistance to it.

The best arguments are made with neutral, steady language. It's also fine (and effective)to punctuate with flourishes, but I would conceive original expressions for that purpose and not clutter up my prose with empty pejoratives.

There is also a tactical consideration to this. The best way to begin the hard work of softening your adversaries is not to immediately impugn their position with insult. I accept that this might be a matter of style, but in my experience, finer thinkers can effectively and creatively sustain a point without the handicap of obvious devices. (I'm not including the skill of satire here. That is a special situation.)

. The best way to begin the hard work of softening your adversaries is not to immediately impugn their position with insult.

there isn't a hard and fast rule. i employ all sorts of tactics depending on the situation. in this case, i have debated/discussed/read about ID/creationism for 15 years now. it is clear impression to me that most people who promote ID are not arguing in good faith. if you have third parties observing the argument perhaps you could make the assertion that you are pushing, but if it is a us vs. them argument than i have no problem getting down and dirty. there are more than two, three, or four ways to go at this. i think there is something to the idea that treating someone as if they are worth being treated with gives them legitimacy. the decision of how to go about engaging people who promote ID is (in my opinion) conditioned upon what your ends are and how you weight the various factors.

myself, i vacillate between the disrespect and treat-them-like-they-are-sincere positions. it all depends on context.

Razib:

I haven't engaged with the IDists quite so long as you have. But my encounters have also left me pessimistic about the utility of public debate with them: It does make uninformed third-parties think that there is a genuine scientific debate on evol. biol.

I'm not quite sure about what's best tactically. Certainly, biologists can't afford to ignore them entirely. Perhaps biologists should focus more on 'outreach' to the public.

Kumar

Razib,

I think there are lots of third parties observing this argument in this forum. (I'm included in that grouping.)

We will have to disagree on this. To me, the ridiculing epithets and bristling dismissiveness are plausibly symptomatic of the following.

1)The evolutionists can't get enough traction.

2)Their arguments are not solid enough.

3)Frustration results.

And in my view, this

4)cognitive dissonance emerges in the disdain you characterize as an optional resource.

I call it something else: undisciplined self-display.

How do the idiots reduce their masters to bawling, name calling simpletons?

This is what gives an objective, non committed reviewer pause.

An irresistable logic has no worry about legitimizing its rivals. It rises like a giant against them and they flee the field without a whisper.

Heh, y'all should print out these parody 'science' postage stamps at Stayfree Magazine:

http://blog.stayfreemagazine.org/2005/08/science_stamps.html

"To me, the ridiculing epithets and bristling dismissiveness are plausibly symptomatic of the following."

No, they're symptomatic of the fact that you're not responding to the arguments already on the table. It's how you'd treat a crazy homeless person muttering in your face.

Yamuna,

I've already stated that it makes no difference whether I am in perfect agreement with the evolutionists in this debate.

My interest is in examining the structure of argument and in deconstructing language.

The arrogance, pomposity, self-congratulatory tone, etc. in tandem with the radical question-begging and inescapable a-priori reasoning of their position makes these evolutionists ridiculous.

But I've had it with this topic. Go ahead and believe adolescently spitballed reasonings.

More serious is the following:

I hope you will learn to be grateful to have escaped the condition of homelessness.

Your comment indicates you have not escaped the stain of presumed superiority.

Shame on you for further degrading those who are defeated in life.

You should re-think this attitude.

Christopher

I recently read an article that finally answer's some of the discomfort that I have had with ID/Creationist push to put this into classrooms. I believe it was recently published in the NYT.

Is "intelligent design" a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how it has been done.

Intelligent design advocates, however, exploit the ambiguity between process and product that is built into the word "design." For them, the presence of a finished product (a fully evolved eye, for instance) is evidence of an intelligent design process. But this tempting conclusion is just what evolutionary biology has shown to be mistaken.

The focus on intelligent design has, paradoxically, obscured something else: genuine scientific controversies about evolution that abound. In just about every field there are challenges to one established theory or another. The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that is crisply denied by the reigning theory — but that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view. . To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach. . Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. "Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms." And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details.

To me the thinking process here is the same I have with most religions. Why?

Why would some being(s) do this? What was the purpose behind the creation of say the scorpion or the platapus? Typically this would mean believing that there is a purpose. Belief(or faith) and science aren't the same. At least to me. Pushing for ID in classrooms would essentinally then convert them into churches/synagogues/mosques/temples.

"I hope you will learn to be grateful to have escaped the condition of homelessness."

Mr. John, you have proven that you can make mincemeat of a throwaway metaphor. For that I congratulate you.

But the main course lies yet on the table, untouched. I can understand if it remains unappetizing. One needs a strong stomach to deal with the "arguments" of the Church.

I reiterate: you haven't addressing the arguments laid out in detail on this thread. Your ball.